Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (Formerly DCNM) Reviews

The main use case for URL filtering with PAN-DB is that it performs quite well. Earlier, when I started in 2012, there was a Blue Coat product available during that period. I am not certain whether it is still available in the market. It was used for network monitoring.

Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (Formerly DCNM) helps to understand the flows and data plane capacities, which are the primary use cases. Usually, people struggle with east-west traffic flow when they need to decide on firewalls or products. People typically understand north-south traffic flows but usually miss the east-west traffic flows in data centers. I was focusing more on this so that people can accordingly plan, such as after F5, the number of servers, the number of sessions needed, and whether we need to plan the interface for groups from the line capacity perspective. This kind of information was valuable to us.

The real-time telemetry feature was beneficial. When experiencing performance issues, I could determine if there were any issues related to flows or areas where bottlenecks were occurring.

I do not believe it integrated well with different infrastructures for hybrid environments.

I am uncertain because we have never attempted that in our environment, so they could perform better in that area.

I have never thought frankly about any areas that could be improved with Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (Formerly DCNM). There would always be some ready reports or I could use custom features, but I never tried those.

I have experience with this product for 13 years.

I believe it is a stable product overall.

I believe it should be easily scalable, but I am uncertain because we were not scaling it.

Cisco's support I would rate as a 10 compared to all other vendors.

They are the most responsive vendor. Sometimes I encountered junior engineers, but reaching out to Cisco is quite good compared to Palo Alto, Check Point, or any other vendor.

We were customers with Cisco and had direct support with them. In the territory where I was operating, which was India, Cisco is not a direct reseller, so they have a reseller partner for transactions. We dealt directly with Cisco, getting direct support, not through a partner. We dealt directly with Cisco account managers and Cisco SE for our account.

Positive

The initial setup was moderate. I would not say it was an out-of-the-box solution or very complex. It was moderate, requiring some time, but I could set up things fairly well.

I do not have experience with Cortex.

I worked primarily with Strata firewalls, Global Protect, and Prisma. These are the three primary products I have worked on.

I am familiar with Prisma Access browser, but I have not used it extensively. It was just basic testing.

I am not familiar with Prisma AIRS API.

I deal with URL filtering with Palo Alto.

I have not used that in a long time.

With other networking vendors, I am familiar with Cisco Nexus.

With Cisco, I have very limited small-medium enterprise exposure. I have not gained exposure to Cisco XDR or Secure Access, but I have reviewed the documentation on those products.

I worked with the Nexus 7000 series, then 7700 series, 5000 series, but not the Nexus 9000 series where ACI and software-defined architecture were introduced.

I did not use the policy-based management features because we were not utilizing those capabilities since we were not implementing software-defined architecture.

We were not using automation capabilities with this product. It was specific to flow monitoring only.

In certain areas such as firewalls, Palo Alto is the most expensive compared to Cisco. However, in other areas such as switching and wireless, Cisco is more expensive than competitors such as Arista, Juniper, or HP. They are somewhat more expensive, but I believe that is what you pay for. It justifies their price compared to these other vendors based on how they provide services and their products.

I did not use it in the cloud with AWS, Google, Azure, or another cloud provider. It was mostly in colo locations.

I do not know the answer regarding whether my company purchased it through the AWS Marketplace or another source. My overall rating for this product is 8 out of 10.

DCNM is used by one of the airline customers in Qatar to manage many data centers and rack switches running on normal Nexus or NX-OS mode. They required a controller platform to manage these Nexus switches, and thus, they utilized DCNM as a Fabric controller. Given that ACI deployment is very low and most setups are just using it in a management-only mode, the majority of the DCNM deployments are used as fabric controllers.

We recommended the Nexus dashboard not based on any particular feature but overall as a management tool. The Cisco sales team convinced the customer due to the number of data centers running in the customer environment and the customer's willingness to try the DCNM.

To improve the product, it should develop more features and use cases to convince customers. It's challenging to sell it to all places with Nexus customers. Bundling it with the switches or creating promotions would help. More integration features would also be beneficial.

We have been working with DCNM for the last two years. We worked on two to three DCNM deployments for a couple of customers during this period.

Stability is not an issue. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a seven. The solution is not that flexible to expand, but it is also not difficult.

The initial setup was not complex. It involves setting up the VM, and it was running on a VM environment. Following Cisco documentation made it straightforward, and with the help of Cisco SMEs, the rollout was not difficult.

The pricing is fine; it is more on the low price side, not high.

I would recommend the product to enterprise customers. It has a better fit and scenario for deployment in larger enterprises rather than small to medium companies.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I have used the Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller in two different scenarios. The first scenario involved using it with a spine-leaf architecture, incorporating BGP and IS-IS for overlay routing. This setup allowed us to utilize various Layer 3 and 4 protocols to manage end-to-end connections.

In the second scenario, I used it in a data center with another Cisco Nexus device configured as a virtual chassis. This setup was not based on a spine-leaf architecture but a dual-core configuration.

The Nexus switches integrate with Cisco's SD-WAN solutions and can be interfaced with various automation tools. They support integration with programming languages like Python and configuration management tools like Ansible and Terraform, allowing for automation and streamlined management.

In a mixed architecture where Nexus switches are used as border devices and are connected to a Palo Alto firewall (e.g., version 9.1 or 10.1), you might encounter issues with BGP peering. For instance, if you have BGP configured between the Palo Alto firewall and multiple Nexus or Catalyst switches, the Palo Alto firewall can lose its BGP neighbors with these switches.

Nexus switches generally offer greater stability for data center environments than Catalyst switches. I prefer using Nexus switches in data centers due to their enhanced stability and features. Nexus also comes with various management and deployment tools, such as ECA and DCNM, which provide robust support for data center operations. While Catalyst switches have their tools, Nexus offers a broader suite of management options that are well-suited for data center environments.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The Nexus switches are highly scalable. You can perform numerous upgrades and add various types of cards to the chassis without issues. This flexibility allows for extensive upgrades and expansions, easily accommodating growing needs.

I've worked with Alcatel OV 2500 series switches for managing data centers.

The initial setup is straightforward. Just read the guide, mount it, and configure it. We can configure it and announce it in two days.

It's very expensive.

Configuring Cisco Nexus switches is relatively straightforward, especially if you're familiar with configuring Catalyst switches. The primary differences between Catalyst and Nexus switches lie in their system architecture and CLI commands. Nexus configurations can differ by about 20-30% from Catalyst configurations. For instance, while certain features may be enabled by default on Catalyst switches, they need to be explicitly enabled on Nexus switches.

Maintaining a solution like this involves several support options, such as Cisco Smart Net. Smart Net is a support program that provides SLAs if the Nexus switches go down. With Smart Net, you can choose different levels of support, such as 2-hour, 4-hour, or 2-business-day response times. This ensures that Cisco will provide a replacement switch as quickly as possible if a Nexus switch fails or is out of service. 

The Nexus switches are known for their stability and high performance, so they have a higher price tag. Due to their cost, they are typically suited for large enterprises rather than small or medium-sized businesses. Major corporations, such as banks, multinational companies, and large industrial firms, have the budget for these high-end switches. The investment is justified by their advanced features and reliability, making them ideal for large-scale environments.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use the tool for better performance in our data center network, including BPA, BPC, and cloud-centric networks. It's integrated with the ACI network, NSX network, content delivery network, and multi-cloud systems.

The security elements and integration with other products are better, so we're using this. I think the bandwidth throughput is smoother and better than other products.

The automation capability is more than enough. It depends on how we consider and integrate the automation engine. We need to ensure the automation engine and then how to perform it. It depends on the policy making, API integration, and other integrations.

The tool should be more user-friendly and improve AI integration.

I have been using the product for more than five years. 

Before the Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller, we used Juniper networks sometimes, but we weren't happy using that. We're going to stay with Cisco. I think Juniper is the second leader for this specific network solution in our country and market.

It has some advantages over the Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller. Their support service is smooth, and their RMA support is good.

The tool offers better performance than others. Out of ten, I think the outcome is eight plus.

The tool is always expensive, but their service, product quality, and support are good. We're happy with it, but it's still an expensive solution. There are cheaper alternatives but no similar platform across all domains.

I would recommend the Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller to others. I think Juniper is better for some companies. Their product is good, and their local partner has been found to support our country. Supply chain management is good. It depends on support service and product quality. Cisco is better than Juniper and Cisco support. I'd rate the Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller eight out of ten.

We use the solution in data center to manage Nexus features and ECS servers.

Cisco provides very good documentation. It is easy to deploy and troubleshoot, and they have good backup support in case of any issues. With regard to maintenance or hardware, I haven't had any significant issues working with Cisco products.

It has a very nice dashboard so you can see what's currently happening in the network and the performance of the back story.

It's very costly. Most of our customers are actually looking for other cost-effective solutions. Even if it has very good performance, other competitors can offer the same at a lower cost. 

I have been using Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (Formerly DCNM) as an implementor for five years.

It is 95% scalable. You need support for cosmetic bugs, security issues, and upgrades.

It is suitable for service provider customers.

We use Arista For SDN controllers.

We could set it up in less than a week.

Two guys are enough to install and configure the product. You need to have the basic package. You don't need any advanced services.

Most of our customers who use Cisco have had the box running for ten plus years, there is ROI.

Cisco has AI switches already for AI use cases.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (formerly DCNM) to manage all the Nexus switches at the airport. We have around 40 of them. We use the solution to check the health and performances of the boxes, the environments (CPU/memory), the VPC and port channel links, the fabric module, power, the supervisor engine, line card modules, and the transceivers. It manages and monitors all the VDCs using SNMP and Syslog. Patch updates and upgrades of the NXOS are implemented using DCNM. We raise RMA directly from it anytime we have to replace a faulty module or switch. I think it is still the best data center management solution out there.

Easy patch updates and upgrades, data center live monitoring, log management, configuration management, raising TAC cases and many more are areas where DCNM has improved my company.

Cisco DCNM provides a unique capability of managing the admin VDCs of Nexus boxes. This is an extremely important feature that is not available with Cisco Super Prime or any other monitoring device. DCNM also supplies a clear graphical view of the connectivity across all VDCs. Integrating with DCMN is an incredible experience. The NDI integration provides an unparalleled level of insight into the data center, allowing for comprehensive analysis and visualization of the entire environment. The power of this integration has truly blown my mind!

The reporting is not very intuitive and has room for improvement. I opened a case with Cisco regarding the DCNM report, however, they were unable to help me. The report comes in the form of a programmable report, which requires high-level knowledge of Python and JSON script. As I was in a meeting and had to present the report, I had to settle for generating an Excel sheet to showcase the data. Unfortunately, this was not well-received as they expected a more detailed report.

In order to identify any issues in the data center, we must thoroughly examine a variety of components such as links, errors, SSPs, supervisor engines, power supply, and more. Forty of each element need to be examined.

I have been using the solution for almost 7 years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I was somewhat let down by my last two experiences with Cisco tech support for some issues. The previous team had been more knowledgeable and provided better service. The last case I opened was related to reporting and was particularly unimpressive. Cisco advised me to find someone who is proficient in programming to create a report for me. This is another expense for the company. I asked if there was a template I could use to develop my project, but Cisco said no. I had an issue with one of the boxes beforehand, where it would ask for sync when there was no configuration change after a few minutes. The box icon usually turns green when it's working, but it would turn red. The issue took almost two months to fix, and I had to do it myself. The lady never contacted me until two months later when she sent a message asking if we could continue this. I had already fixed the issue, so I was disappointed.

Neutral

No

Compared to previous versions of the solution the initial setup is easy. We initially used TenDot and had issues during the initial deployment. We then upgraded to 10.0.x, 10.4.x, 11.1(0), and finally 11.5(4), which was much simpler. Although we have not upgraded to 12.x yet, the deployment process of the latest versions didn't take as long as the initial deployment of 10.x DCNM. We experienced some issues with bugs and links showing down when they were online on 10.x DCNM. The problems have already been resolved in the latest releases 11.x and 12.x.

When we purchase Nexus boxes, the "DCNM for LAN Advanced License and MDS" licenses were purchased alongside with them; this allows the DCNM server to manage the Nexus boxes.

We can download Cisco DCNM from the Cisco website and install it on a virtual environment such as VMware or Hyper-V, a Windows system, or in the cloud. We don't need to pay for the DCNM license because the nexus switches required DCNM licenses to manage them. To activate the DCNM server license itself, we just needed to contact Cisco and they will generate the license for us.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We have two clients using the solution. One has a small data center and the other is running a large data center. Both clients are using Cisco DCNM Classic LAN - HA to manage the data centers.

We integrated the NAC server (Cisco ISE) with this unit, so all users and their respective privileges are managed remotely instead of locally. We have a large number of users with varying privileges, and they can all access the unit based on the privileges they have been granted on the NAC server.

The best Configuration Management an organization can use to manage Nexus boxes such as N2K, N3K, N5K, and N7K, is Cisco DCNM. The solution will also provide a full description of what is happening within the data center.

We have Cisco Prime and NNMi, but these services cannot fully monitor or manage all the NX-OS boxes. Therefore, Cisco DCNM is the best choice for managing the VDCs. Cisco DCNM has three interfaces, one to connect to the out-of-bound boxes (Enhanced Fabric Management), an Enhanced-Fabric-Inband interface for inbound traffic, and a third interface for DCNM-management traffic. Because most of the servers have only one interface (inbound), they are not able to manage the entire box and VDCs. With Cisco DCNM's multiple interfaces, it is able to manage both the inbound and outbound traffic on the box. This makes Cisco DCNM the perfect solution to manage data center infra.

The daily use case involves implementing changes in policies and rules across switches using Cisco Data Center Network Manager. We need to ensure that when we change in one place, it updates all others simultaneously. This process uses push technology, which pushes the changes to all relevant devices to ensure they are updated accordingly.

There is an imbalance in the uplink and downlink ports of the product purchased earlier.

The automation feature could be improved. Cisco Data Center Network Manager enables automatic discovery of Cisco switches. If there are templates available for rules, it's beneficial to have better templates. I recommend that these improvements be incorporated into the Cisco AI Center. Currently, tasks need to be manually performed, but the process becomes more efficient with AI integration.

The product is stable.

20 users are using this solution.

The initial setup is complex. During deployment, we had to configure each one manually.

You want to access one VM from another because there is East-West traffic among these centers. Any company needs it in our virtual environment. You want to collect this interval communication. You want to take it to Cisco security and secure it because you don't want somebody with access to one VM to access the Azure VM in the servers. You can only protect it if you use some mechanism in between. We tried to use the Cisco Firewall switch, but it was not working.

Three guys are enough for the solution’s maintenance.  All the integrations we made were with Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The tool's most valuable feature is the consolidated dashboard, providing insights into parameters and overall usage of network features. It allows us to easily summarize insights through the dashboards. The solution offers automation capabilities, particularly in the context of connecting LAN sites with websites.

The tool's pricing strategy could be improved to compete more effectively in the market, especially against competitors like Huawei, Aruba, and Juniper. 

The frequent changes in the product line and naming by the vendor create confusion for us and the customers. This can be challenging, especially when customers are accustomed to certain product names, and the changes can lead to confusion in understanding data sheets and configurations.

I have been using the product for eight to ten years. 

The tool's deployment is not difficult, and even though there were some initial challenges, following the provided guidelines made the process more straightforward with subsequent implementations. The implementation process doesn't significantly impact our existing workflow. If it's an existing network, we discuss it with the customer and plan for some downtime, which is not extensive. We conduct testing in stages, including a stage in which we test in the live environment.

We integrate the product for our customers. Even customers can follow the installation process themselves with the provided guidelines.

We usually opt for a yearly plan, commonly for three or five years upfront. Some customers may not utilize all the features included in the product, and this can lead to them paying for functionalities they don't need.

Some customers may opt for third-party network management, but specifically for Cisco Data Center, customers still prefer the product. I primarily work with virtualized and physical appliances for this solution. While there might be cloud options available, I haven't dealt with them. 

I don't have any unique capabilities to highlight for this product. I've heard that Cisco DCNM and Aruba have similar offerings. However, the factors influencing the choice often include how well the solutions integrate with the customer's environment, the quality of tech support, and the presence of local personnel or offices.

The value in Investing in a data center is crucial because data centers are operationally critical, serving potentially hundreds of thousands of users, especially in sectors like banking or finance. It is essential to rely on dependable devices and services for the continuous operation of these critical facilities. Data centers require a reliable product network monitoring or management team to ensure constant traffic monitoring 24/7.

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to manage switches.

The product makes the management of our environment simpler. It simplifies the management of our services that are deployed on the switches and routers. It is easy to manage.

We need better performance and reliability.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. We have more than 10,000 users in our organization.

The support is not perfect. It could be improved.

I work in the operations team. There is a separate deployment team in our organization. The deployment takes three months.

The deployment is done in-house.

We use Cisco Smart Licensing. The features have to be unlocked through Cisco Smart Licensing.

We haven't got much to compare the product against. It is tied in with the Cisco equipment in the organization. Juniper is our backbone. I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use it to simplify the maintenance of servers and the network infrastructure for data centers. This means a single pane of glass from where we can easily manage the data center. 

We can configure things, check the host setup, and apply this to the policies. In addition, we also upgraded the OS version to fulfill the compliance requirements. We can also manage the progress and develop updates or check the health status and upgrade of home-based solutions.

We now get more insight into the network's health data. This includes the compliance part and other points to a single pane from there. We can also upgrade and get the visibility for the running version. Without the compatibility of the infrastructure, we would not have been able to do this. It will manage what we don't see on the device and sync from a single cloud.

I don't have to rely on the on-site engineer who can do the configuration. I can have our team just plug the devices and perform remotely. I can also do the templates. 

Automation for the RMA process can be added. 

I have been using Cisco Data Center Network Manager for more than a year.

It is a scalable solution. It is recommended for both small and medium-sized companies. 

The technical support team is excellent. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment of the solution is dependent on the organization, but after it is downloaded, it takes an hour to get the solution deployed. 

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.